OpenOffice version with change tracking attached. I think this comes close to being acceptable; I'll try to draft a response now. On 2003-05-21 16:05:14 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote: > From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> > To: "Council (list)" <council@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:05:14 +0200 > Subject: [council] New compromise text - gTLDs > Organization: AIM > X-Spam-Level: > > Bruce, > thank you for your comments on the gTLD report. I understand that you made > clear that the content of these comments are done by you in your capacity as > registrar's representative. > > As chairman of the gTLDs committee, I support the change regarding the > description of the objective criteria for expansion. You suggest these > should be the subject for a future PDP. I agree. The committee has no intent > to circumvent a PDP. It was just doing what was asked of it. > > I am however concerned about the reduction in these example criteria from 8 > to 3. Specifically, let me comment on your suggested deletions: > 1. Deletion - "Future expansion should increase the level of competition". > You suggest that any extra name will automatically increase competition and > therefore this criteria is unnecessary. This seems to mix the idea of choice > and competition. Competition is a function on the offering and the supplier. > > 2. Deletion "names should be for commercial and non-commercial purposes". > You say this is a redundant. Perhaps it is but given the oft expressed > concern of the non-commercial constituency that their interests may be left > out, it seems wise sometimes to state the obvious. > > 3. Deletion "Future names should add value to the namespace" . I am surprised > about this deletion as it is one of the Lynn criteria which were explicitly > supported in the Registrars paper. Are you saying that future names may well > add NO value to the namespace? > > 4. IDNs - the text in the report was supplied by Jeff Neumann and Cary Carp > from the gTLDs constituency after discussion. It seemed like a useful > summary. The change you make about delayed implementation is a new > undiscussed issue. (If there remains concern with the text, I suggest we > simply delete all reference to IDNs). > > 5.Deletion "differentiation" - you delete this on the grounds differentiation > is achieved if names are not confusingly similar. These are separate > concepts. It also disregards an important section of discussion on the > committee. The concept of differentiation is central to the papers of the BC, > IPC and ISPs. Support from "segmentation" was given in discussion by a > member of the Registrars. It was in the Lynn paper supported in the > Registrars position. The latter half of the original paragraph picked up the > finessing of the ALAC paper regarding differentiation. > > The report submitted tried to capture the various sometimes competing views > of participants. But I believe your edits go too far in erasing this > diversity. In my capacity as chairman please find attached a proposed > compromise text (v5) in which I pick up the procedural changes you make (link > to PDP) but try to maintain a fuller list of elements considered by > participants as worthy of inclusion in that PDP. Version 5 also contains the > recent gTLD registries paper. > Philip > -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
gTLDS committee conclusions v5.sxw
Description: OpenOffice Writer document